OS X 10.1 complaints... STRAIGHT FROM APPLE

Maybe the PC in which you were running Flash had a faster video card? Maybe browser plug-ins in general worked better on the browser you had on the PC?

Flash came from Director if I'm not mistaken, and I believe Director was originally a Mac program. I don't buy your statements.


If Textedit opens in one bounce on a dual 800 (I'll take your word for it), then maybe while there have been software optimizations, those same optimizations will run faster on faster hardware?
 
Originally posted by solrac
I'm talking about G4 only

My TiBook G4 is slower than a Dual 866 of course, but they should both open text edit in one bounce but ------

.......

It doesn't matter what you have. G3, G4, Dual G4, Quad G4 with infinity RAM. No difference. It's all in the software.
The app launching improvements in OS X are SO software based. It's the software that was totally revamped.

hardware will help in an overall sense or in hardware specific problems (like number crunching).

-solrac-
Click to expand...

I tried it last night. I got my tiBook back from my wife and launched textedit... 2 bounces. Maybe 2.2 bounces tops. Opened textedit on my top G4... 1 bounce, maybe 1.5. Both have the EXACT SAME software config. Same software, OS version, everything - except Hardware. So I guess I've proven there can be a (roughly) 1 bounce difference based only on HW? Happy now? Can you grow up and stop insulting people now?

edit - I should have added that this is all with 10.0.4 - not 10.1. I have 10.1 on an extra machine but that was just to play... I wait for REAL releases of software before I install on anything I need.

Re: the 2nd paragraph quoted above, and I paraphrase what another poster said, do you actually think about what you are writing before you type it out and hit submit? "G3, G4...No difference," huh? There is a big difference. I have all those systems mentioned except the quad G4 w/ infinity RAM and running the exact same SW config on each of those machines is different. Very different. Yes the update and improvements in X.1 are "SO software based," but what does that software run on? Last I checked it ran on the specific hardware. Chip speed, bus speed, cache speed and size, RAM, VRAM, graphics card, etc... all, obviously, have a bearing on what the user perceives as the overall speed of the system.

I asked you before to post your specific config in order that someone might be able to suggest something to help you. I suggested some small changes you could make in the WAY you use OS X that would alleviate your speed concerns. You chose to ignore those suggestions/requests so that leads me to believe you are only interested in the attention that complaining seems to have gotten you. Squeaky wheel and all...

So do us a favor and keep your personal attacks to yourself (and that goes for everyone, but I cannot remember anyone attacking you personally - I know I didn't). People were honestly trying to help you until it became obvious you were just venting or whining or whatever. As soon as you ignored honest efforts at helping you, people gave up (I know I did). This board, overall and with all its assorted characters, is one of the most tolerant and helpful boards I've come across. If you want help in the future, you may want to rethink your attitude and actions in this thread.

My experiment above proves that, yes, textedit CAN launch in one bounce and that a tiBook and a desktop G4 CAN have differences in speed not related to the software. Frankly, I'd be surprised if that was not the case. I'd invite you over to see this difference first hand but I wouldn't want you to go into one of your tantrums and scar my dogs for life... Why don't you give it a shot at your nearest Apple Store.
 
Solrac,
1st of all nice ride!

2nd Application launch speed has a lot to do with hardrive speed, RAM, and bus speed. A Dual 800 with1.5gb of Ram and a 133mhz bus is going to smoke your TiBook with slower HD and slower bus speed. It will probably be significantly different on my Dual 500 with its 100mhz bux. However I agree that something like Text edit should launch instantly on any G3 or G4

As for Flash. I agree. It plain sucks on any Mac. The only decent Flash plug in I've seen (as far as speed) is the one for Omniweb (for the few sites it works on). Unfortunately with the 4.1 release they will use the stock Flash plug in.

One suggestion however. If you installed 5g64 over an already existing install and if you made any significant mods (Metamorph X, Mac Janitor, Xoptimize, Tinker Tools) I'd suggest a clean install of OS 10.0x and then upgrading. Think of it as an opportunity to back up everything you have for security sake :)
 
Originally posted by AxsDeny
everything loading in less than 1 bounce, max was 3 for explorer. Are guys running older machines or what?
Click to expand...

For reference purposes, my G3 333 loads text edit in 3 bounces, both initial and relaunch using 10.04. I'm picking up 10.1 later today, we'll see if there is any improvement. Not that I think it's even a big deal, three bounces is something like two seconds. I would imagine when I reinstall a SoftRaid soluion it will be one bounce. SoftRaid in OS9 allowed my machine to smoke most new machines in launch times. Hadware does matter, especially drive speeds, drive quantity, drivers, and the difference between the G4, and G3 when it comes to streaming data. Altivec on the G4 boost any streaming data, and guess what, launching apps is streaming data into RAM. G4's are faster at this, not to mention the faster bus speed to travel on. This guys seems to be very inexperienced with computers, I'm guessing this is his first computer purchase, and he doesn't realize that his computer was obsolete before he bought it. Who cares about all this anyways if you can get your work done that's all that matters. One or two bounces per app launch is going to make a one ot two second difference daily. Not a major problem that I think Apple should focus on. Who the hell even used text edit anyways, I think I've used it once. Lets stick the real problems, like making sure all the hardware is supported, and getting applications ported. If he wants faster launches, which can be a problem for some other apps, then he needs to take the steps to do that by first attain the information about how computers work, and then upgrading his.
 
Originally posted by apb3


I wait for REAL releases of software before I install on anything I need.
Click to expand...

Peter, was this referring to third party "real software" or the OS?
I feel with 10.1 the only thing holding me back is the X versions of my graphics/web/interactive/DV software from third parties.
I can honestly say that X is heads and shoulders above any classic OS Ive used before. I'm not just hyping up but X is not the slightest bit slower than classic on my machine. Even in X my classic apps such as Photoshop, GoLive etc... launch in not 1/100th of a second longer than when booted in classic. And the bonus to this is I can launch the classic apps and go back to working with other processes while it loads. I am enamoured with this release. Think of how far back Apples OS would be without X. Can you imagine any excitement AT ALL with another classic update?

Anyway, I dont want to sound like i am berading you- im not. Just want to clarify my thoughts on "real software" releases and what that means to me.
 
I was refering to the OS release and the seeds and the pirated stuff from wherever. I have a dev seed but I haven't installed even that on any machine that I need to do real work. It's for play and testing. When I have the official commercial release of X.1, then I'll install that on a spare machine, test it for a day or so (as long as I can verify it will work with everything I need it to work with), and only then put it on a machine I need to do work. I do this with any OS.

But now that you mention it, I guess it applies to all software - or should. I don't always make back-up copies or follow every little instruction when installing software. But, I should. I guess I've never really been badly burned by an app install trashing my system... Not the way past OSs have. Maybe if some app install someday makes me spend a few days figuring out what went wrong or recovering lost data, then I'll change the way I do things. Just like to live dangerously - or just lazy, one of those two...

I agree with evrything you said about OS X. Maybe I misunderstood your question, but I found it in no way berating. I am lucky enough to never have to boot into 9 again (once I have DVD playing/burning in X). I still have to use classic on occassion and I resent it more and more each time. 9.2, 9.3, 9.9 - who cares? You're right. However, until evryone's essential apps are X native, classic will still be necessary, and in that way, updates to the classic OS will be important to those using those specific apps. I hope I'll be able to do away with classic the same as OS9 - sooner rather than later.

My point in using "real software" was that people are complaining about what is essentially a brand new system and gauging it's ability by pre-release, pirated versions of it's first major update.
 
Originally posted by apb3
I was refering to the OS release and the seeds and the pirated stuff from wherever. I have a dev seed but I haven't installed even that on any machine that I need to do real work. It's for play and testing. When I have the official commercial release of X.1, then I'll install that on a spare machine, test it for a day or so (as long as I can verify it will work with everything I need it to work with), and only then put it on a machine I need to do work. I do this with any OS.

But now that you mention it, I guess it applies to all software - or should. I don't always make back-up copies or follow every little instruction when installing software. But, I should. I guess I've never really been badly burned by an app install trashing my system... Not the way past OSs have. Maybe if some app install someday makes me spend a few days figuring out what went wrong or recovering lost data, then I'll change the way I do things. Just like to live dangerously - or just lazy, one of those two...

I agree with evrything you said about OS X. Maybe I misunderstood your question, but I found it in no way berating. I am lucky enough to never have to boot into 9 again (once I have DVD playing/burning in X). I still have to use classic on occassion and I resent it more and more each time. 9.2, 9.3, 9.9 - who cares? You're right. However, until evryone's essential apps are X native, classic will still be necessary, and in that way, updates to the classic OS will be important to those using those specific apps. I hope I'll be able to do away with classic the same as OS9 - sooner rather than later.

My point in using "real software" was that people are complaining about what is essentially a brand new system and gauging it's ability by pre-release, pirated versions of it's first major update.
Click to expand...

gotcha. We are in agreeance; I Just wanted to make sure i understood your points.:)
 
I just got back from the Apple Store, and installed MacOS 10.1, and here is the comparison from earlier. Text Edit launches in 2 bounces on the initial launch, and 1 on a relaunch. This is on a G3 333 beige machine. In 10.04 it was 3 bounces for both launch and relaunch. On a Silver 733, it was 1.5 bounces. Some bad news for Tia book users is that I did a lot of test at the store, and the Tia books running 10.1 were at least three times as slow as the desktop stations at similar speeds. Text Edit was 3 bounces on average for Ti-Book. Not just at launching was slow on the T-Book, but Quicktime playback, and most other functions were lagging. There was actually a bunch of T-book users gatherd at the G-Bar discussing this very topic, so it is a obvious problem for these buyers. The tech guy had one working on it, but I have no idea what he was doing to it, it may not have been releated. My initial experience was that the drive speed seemed very slow but I didn't have that much time to test or check the hardware configs of each unit. All versions of the OS were 5G64. All the guys behind the G-Bar, were not really G-Men BTW. They couldn't answer any of the questions I asked them.


Originally posted by ezra


For reference purposes, my G3 333 loads text edit in 3 bounces, both initial and relaunch using 10.04. I'm picking up 10.1 later today, we'll see if there is any improvement. Not that I think it's even a big deal, three bounces is something like two seconds. I would imagine when I reinstall a SoftRaid soluion it will be one bounce. SoftRaid in OS9 allowed my machine to smoke most new machines in launch times. Hadware does matter, especially drive speeds, drive quantity, drivers, and the difference between the G4, and G3 when it comes to streaming data. Altivec on the G4 boost any streaming data, and guess what, launching apps is streaming data into RAM. G4's are faster at this, not to mention the faster bus speed to travel on. This guys seems to be very inexperienced with computers, I'm guessing this is his first computer purchase, and he doesn't realize that his computer was obsolete before he bought it. Who cares about all this anyways if you can get your work done that's all that matters. One or two bounces per app launch is going to make a one ot two second difference daily. Not a major problem that I think Apple should focus on. Who the hell even used text edit anyways, I think I've used it once. Lets stick the real problems, like making sure all the hardware is supported, and getting applications ported. If he wants faster launches, which can be a problem for some other apps, then he needs to take the steps to do that by first attain the information about how computers work, and then upgrading his.
Click to expand...
 
So y'all, I'm running the following command, and you should too:

update_prebinding -root /

After a reboot I'll see if OmniWeb still takes 6 bounces on first launch and 3 on re-launch. 10.1 is a joy no matter how you cut it, but I'll do this just for the sake of posterity and see if there isn't something to be gained from this little command.

Once the command has been run, by the way, the next time it will only prebind those libraries and apps that have been updated or installed later, unless you add the -force flag, which might be useful afteer you've defragged your drive or restored a backup.

----

First results are interesting:

Number of non-prebound files: 0
Number of files that may need to be re-prebound : 1160
Number of files re-prebound: 3
Number of files unsuccessfully prebound: 40

Hmm, just for kicks I'll throw in the -force flag and run it once more....

Number of non-prebound files: 0
Number of files that may need to be re-prebound : 1160
Number of files re-prebound: 975
Number of files unsuccessfully prebound: 185

Very interesting....

Oh well, see you after I reboot!
 
Okay then,

Nothing changed, but then all my prebindings were in the same condition before and after I used update_prebinding. Still I can't complain. It beats the hell out of 10.0.4.

For reference, this is a 450MHz G4 AGP with 768MB of RAM. Hmm, maybe if I defrag my drive....
 
I think the speed problems you saw with those Ti books must have been memory. On my 500 with 512mb, fresh install of 10.1 everything is tight.
textedit 1.5 bounces.
systems prefs 2 bounces.

The sloweset app is probably Omniweb with 5-6 bounces, but I expect that to change in 4.1

ta ra
 
Olu, thanks for the compliments on the ride. Best all around car ever made, period.

Apb3, I'm only insulting people because I got insulted first.
And when I said G3, G4 no difference I WAS TALKING ABOUT FLASH PLAYBACK!!!

Flash sucks on a mac, no matter what.

Besson, please listen. The PCs I've used have no better video cards. Flash plays back better on any PC, from a 200 mhz pentium 2 up to a 2 Ghz Pentium 4. It makes no difference. The Mac plays back flash slower than all recent PCs, period. (Unless you get a messed up PC, or a PC that is SUPER obsolete. In that case Mac flash is only a little faster, or equal.)

This is SOFTWARE. It has NO bearing on hardware. Yes, faster hardware can play back flash faster, if the slowdown is caused by slow hardware. Like an alpha fade. But Mac flash is slow in general, because of the software.

Try it. I dare you to try it on any PC vs. any Mac. The mac looks like shit. And flash is so important. It's the future of the web.

And, like another poster said... Text Edit should launch in one bounce on a G3 or G4. It doesn't matter. That aspect of it is software. This guy just did a test! His G3 launches text edit in 2 bounces! The post is just above mine somewhere. My TiBook takes 3 bounces! That's a G4 vs G3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe it is a hardware problem with the TiBook and not just software..... I might be wrong about that, I admit. I just don't think so.

But about Flash. It's software. Mac is screwed for flash at present.

Absolutely right: OmniWeb's flash plugin is SUPER fast, fast as any PC. Open a simple flash page in Explorer, then omniweb (OmniWeb can only play simple flash sites.) OmniWeb SMOKES explorer. This is on the SAME computer. So are you gonna tell me it's hardware? NO! You're on the same computer! Just two different web browsers, two different flash plug ins. SORRY. It's a software issue. (Try my site: www.flashgods.com/portfolio/games/tetris.swf and check out the spinning logo. Slow on Mac, fast on PC or mac omniweb. The tetris blocks fall slower on mac, too. But you can't play the game in omniweb....)

OmniWeb Flash is comparable to the best PCs playing Flash. What a shame it is not a complete Flash 5 plugin.

And no, I don't care about text edit opening in one bounce. I'm not "hung up on that". That's so stupid. It's just an example of a larger picture. I'm looking at the forest, some of you are only looking at the trees. If I figure out how to make my apps launch in less bounces, I know my whole system is faster, and on par with the best and most properly configured macs, or at least in part. That's my goal. Not to "have text edit launch in one bounce". Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.

ok thanks,
-solrac-
 
Originally posted by jcart12
I think the speed problems you saw with those Ti books must have been memory. On my 500 with 512mb, fresh install of 10.1 everything is tight.
textedit 1.5 bounces.
systems prefs 2 bounces.

The sloweset app is probably Omniweb with 5-6 bounces, but I expect that to change in 4.1

ta ra
Click to expand...

Oh, and apb3, I already posted my configuration! You just didn't see it. So don't say I'm not accepting anybody's help, please.

My TiBook is a 400 mhz, with 384 MB of RAM.
System Prefs takes 6 bounces. 5 on a relaunch. Then 3 on subsequent relaunches. TextEdit takes 3 bounces, 2 on relaunches. I'm sure that's slower than ANYBODY else's new mac with 10.1
 
Originally posted by jcart12
I think the speed problems you saw with those Ti books must have been memory. On my 500 with 512mb, fresh install of 10.1 everything is tight.
textedit 1.5 bounces.
systems prefs 2 bounces.

The sloweset app is probably Omniweb with 5-6 bounces, but I expect that to change in 4.1

ta ra
Click to expand...

Nope, they all had 512MB as well. There were a group of Ti bbok owners their complaining when I was their, so it obviously not just this guy. It may just be the way it is installed. I know on my machine I installed many different ways and each seemed to have benefits and drawbacks. I went through at least ten different installs before I found the one that worked best.
 
Originally posted by besson3c
Solrac:

Maybe you should switch to Windows, you can open and quit WordPad all day long there and then you'll feel like you're getting a lot done...
Click to expand...


Or better yet, switch to either linux or netbsd and launch vi over and over again. Then ya dont have to worry about bouncing pictures, or any pictures at all for that matter...
 
Originally posted by elvisripley
10.1 on my Dual 800 is exactly as fast as on the demo.
Click to expand...

The silver 733 machine was equally as fast that I tested at the Apple sore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top